You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 27, 2017

Protecting TV Show Formats

Informed Counsel

Licensing of TV show formats is big business, generating billions of dollars in global revenue every year for show creators. In licensing popular show formats, licensees obtain security by investing in TV shows which have already been proven successful, and show creators enjoy the extra revenue streams created by licensing their shows for production and broadcast in new markets, which can strengthen their brand and increase the value of future licenses. In addition, viewers in licensee countries are able to take part in global TV phenomenons which have been adapted to appeal to their local cultures and viewing preferences.

Surprisingly, intellectual property protection in this area remains uncertain. Despite the continued popularity of licensing TV show formats, it is also common for shows exhibiting very similar formats to pop up on competing networks once a given show has proven successful. This article will examine some of the legal hurdles encountered in protecting TV show formats, and some strategies show creators can implement to ensure they do not fall prey to competing broadcasters who want to free ride on their intellectual property.

Definition of a TV Show Format

While there is no single accepted legal definition of what a TV show format includes, the Format Recognition and Protection Association defines a show format as:

“A distinctive combination of comprehensively described television elements (both new and commonplace which may or may not be protected as separate intellectual property items) fixed in any material form that creates an original, repeatable narrative structure.”

As shown by this broad definition, TV show formats may include a wide array of items which may not even be protectable on their own, but may be combined in a unique way to create an original protectable work. Simply put, a show’s format is what makes the show unique and recognizable between different episodes or seasons, and includes the behind-the-scenes knowledge that actually makes the show work.

To understand what a format includes, it may be helpful to compare different types of TV shows to see how formats may differ between genres. Traditional scripted shows are written out in advance to determine the plot, dialogue, character development, mood, pacing, and other elements. An example of a scripted show which has been licensed multiple times is the popular workplace comedy series The Office. While the writing may change for each licensed version to account for cultural differences, the defining aspects of the characters and their relationships to each other largely remain the same between versions.

In comparison, talent competition shows, game shows, and reality shows rely on spontaneity for much of their content, and as a result the core content changes from episode to episode. Examples of these kinds of shows include Survivor, The Voice, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and Wife Swap. These shows do not utilize scripts for much of their content, and so the formats consist of the show premise and structure, visual features, branding, and production know-how.                    

Limitations on Protection under Copyright Law

Copyright law is the primary form of legal protection for original creative works such as TV shows. However, copyright law provides several limitations on the protectability of TV show formats, namely: (1) the idea/expression dichotomy; (2) scènes à faire, or “scenes to be made”; and (3) merger doctrine.

The idea/expression dichotomy says that ideas are not protected under copyright law, only the expressions of those ideas. This means that the mere idea for a show where contestants compete to be voted the best singer is not protectable. This has allowed a plethora of singing competition shows to flourish, and not given any one broadcasting network monopoly rights over the idea.

Scènes à faire doctrine states that some scenes flow naturally from a given genre, and consequently will not be protectable under copyright. Take, for example, a shoot-out scene in a western show, or an award ceremony in a talent competition show. This doctrine provides that no one creator may have the sole rights to utilize these kinds of generic scenes in their show.

The merger doctrine states that some simple ideas may only be expressed in limited ways. In these cases, the idea and its expression are said to merge and so neither the idea nor its expression will be protected. An example of this is a competitive reality show where the contestants are eliminated in each successive round until there is only one left. This doctrine complements the idea/expression dichotomy and prevents shows utilizing simple ideas from gaining sole rights to those ideas due to the limited options available for their expression.

These limitations, combined with the largely spontaneous content of many reality and competition-based shows, make it difficult to protect many types of TV show format from imitators under copyright. Admittedly, the mere idea of a popular TV show alone is not enough to guarantee that a copied show will be successful, and so creators should also look to protect additional aspects of their shows.

Brand and Production Know-How

The relatively light legal protections available under copyright law belie the strength of the TV show format marketplace. This may be due in part to the additional benefits that come with a standard licensing agreement. For one, the brand surrounding a popular format, including the show name, may be very valuable to show licensees, as it guarantees that a certain number of viewers will already be familiar with the show.

In addition, show licensees may have the most interest in obtaining the production know-how accrued by the original show creators, such as how to make the format profitable, the best times to air the show to acquire the most viewers, and other logistics which can only be discovered through trial and error. Obtaining access to the production know-how of a show ensures that a licensee will be able to successfully implement the format, and will benefit from the experience of the show creators.

Protection Strategies

In order to thoroughly protect their TV show formats from competitors, creators should pursue a multipronged protection strategy. As discussed above, TV show creators should take efforts to build up the brand of their show by registering trademarks in multiple jurisdictions for the show name and other distinctive catch phrases used in the show. Similarly, show creators should safeguard their production know-how as trade secrets and maintain strict confidentiality procedures to prevent inadvertent disclosure.

TV show creators may find additional protection through contracts, by requiring third parties to sign nondisclosure agreements covering any information disclosed during pitch sessions. Alternatively, and depending on the jurisdiction, show creators may require show staff to sign noncompete agreements so that competitors are unable to swoop in and rehire an entire show’s production team en masse.

Finally, compiling all information pertaining to a TV show format into a “format bible” will support protection in two ways. First, it will represent a valuable resource to potential licensees interested in purchasing the right to use the show format, and may even discourage potential imitators from trying to pursue a similar show without the benefit of the extensive know-how available to licensees. Second, in the event of legal action, the format bible may serve as evidence of the extensive creativity and originality contained within the show, which may be used to argue that the show should be protected under copyright as an original creative work.

As always, TV show creators should seek the advice of experienced counsel to develop effective strategies to protect their valuable intellectual property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must